Beauty

For no apparent reason it has taken me 3 years to get around to watching this film. I wish I had waited 3 years more. After reading about all the acclaim this film received as an "art film" I cannot help but wonder if I had just finished watching the same movie.

More so, I am amazed that none of the critics that reviewed this film could just have said that in fact it was a really badly written movie to which a single person might be able to memorize all the lines of the entire script.

There is nothing memorable about this film except for the consistent bleakness from start to the literally downward spiraling end.

You don't need to be an intellectual to understand obsession, or the need to dominate and hurt without cause. We have all crossed paths with angry and regretful people. Yet as a viewer it is hard to understand why no effort was made to project this struggle with more credit to the intelligence of the viewer.

I hate that this film falls in the gay and lesbian genre. It is more about violence and bigotry than homosexuality.

I can't help feeling like this film was written somewhere between the opening of a cheap bottle of whiskey, someone's last fifty rand and passing out on the floor.

Beauty is a generally well-made movie about the ugly consequences of sexual repression in an intensely, violently homophobic society in South Africa (although it could just as well have been set in the United States or most other countries). The movie's few serious flaws--Deon Lotz is not believable as a gay man, even as a severely closeted and homophobic gay man; and Charlie Keegan is nowhere near the beauty the movie makes him out to be--in a way aren't really flaws at all, because those incongruities reinforce the fundamental impossibility of anything approaching health and sanity in such a perverted society. The true perverts are the homophobes, and this movie exposes them and portrays the hypocrisy, depravity and violence of their lives with great power and clarity.

The characters are bilingual; the movie's dialog is about 30% English and 70% Afrikaans, often switching back and forth several times within a single multi-person conversation. That would be okay if either both languages were subtitled (the best solution) or if the English were not spoken with a pronounced South African accent--but instead they chose to subtitle ONLY the words spoken in Afrikaans.

Often I found myself wondering why the subtitles suddenly stopped in the middle of a conversation only to realize too late that they were speaking English now so I was supposed to know what they were saying; then they would switch without warning back to Afrikaans and the subtitles resumed.

That's a big mistake, it would have been easy to avoid, and it's unacceptably and unnecessarily distracting. When the same voice alternates between Afrikaans and Afrikaans-accented English, a non-bilingual listener can't make the instantaneous adjustments required to understand every word. It would have cost them practically nothing to subtitle the English too, but they didn't. It became slightly less a problem later in the movie just because I got used to it, but it never ceased to be a distraction. That's the main reason I deducted a few stars.

This film is without a doubt the most shocking film I have ever seen. It's difficult to say just how the writer/director came about doing this film but a couple of things come to mind. I could not help think of the way Hitchcock would prepare the viewer for a shocking scene by almost lulling the viewer to sleep so that when the big scene takes place you practically jump from your seat and go running for the nearest exit. I'm thinking of Psycho, of course. Here, a virtually identical event takes place and there was no exit for me to run to so I had to stay in my chair and sit out perhaps the most horrific scene I have ever witnessed in a movie or in real life. It is shockingly presented and you sit there frozen thinking to yourself this can't be happening. Everything that happens before the big scene and everything that happens after are completely out of context with the big scene itself and the writer/director has done this precisely the way Hitchcock did it in Psycho. There is an element of abstraction that really hits you hard and you just cannot stop thinking about what you have just seen. In fact, the more I think about this film the more I realize how torn and twisted men are when it comes to lust and the flesh and that the biggest struggle men have is overcoming their sexual desires especially when they are twisted and sick as in this fellow's case. It really is impossible for women to fully grasp just how horrific it is for men in many cases to overcome the flesh and to behave in a humane and decent way. Men are tortured there is no question about it and the man in this film is a perfect example of how wrong a man can go even though on the surface he lives a good life.

It's a slow burner but all the more satisfying for that. I like to get to the crux of a movie and here it is all about self denial. A closet homosexual who lives his life in complete denial of his sexual self. The scene where the men get together to indulge in an orgy but specify that no homosexuals are allowed makes the point without any preamble. The tension surrounds the main character's desire for a straight young man, you can feel his lust build and build and you know that is going to lead him to do something terrible and it does. The aftermath is very realistic, almost anti climatic but so many rape cases are not reported (especially male rape) that I felt it was wholly believable. I am not LGB or T but you don't have to be to get the message being portrayed here: suppression of your true self is a dangerous thing. One thing I discovered while looking into this movie was that there is a Queer Palm at Cannes, if it encourages more films like this it can only be a good thing.

There seems to be a misapprehension about this movie and is key to understanding it. Francois is not in fact a blood uncle. In the opening wedding scene Christian says something ( I can't remember his actual words) which establish that. The opening scene shows Francois transfixed by a vision of a young man known to him last as a boy before the two families lost touch. If he were a REAL uncle, how likely is it that he doesn't already know what he looks like? This changes the whole dynamic of the movie and makes his actions at the later beach scene easier to understand. This movie is very good, but not an easy watch, but I feel that viewers need to know the above, (a point which even a few commercial reviewers got wrong) in order to appreciate its merits.